From Gene Expression: There are certain things which are sacred, certain lines you don’t cross. … I was thinking about [this] a few months ago when I read Rome & Jerusalem: A Clash of Ancient Civilizations
Robin, haven't you also proposed that disbelief in an idea need be no barrier to vigorously (perhaps devilishly) advocating it? Hence your promotion of futarchy does not necessarily shed light on your beliefs about which government would be best.
My question was serious. My take from the post was that all forms of government are the same, a small group of people ruling over a large group of people with the large group of people having little say in what happens. Does he prefer no government?
I think Mr Hanson is halfway correct when he writes: "I've been saying for years that people prefer democracy mainly because they think it raises their social status". But I don't think it's the whole story.
I think democracy represents a compromise between the collectivists in society, those for whom position, or social status, within the pecking order is the predominant concern and envy (manifested as egalitarianism) the prime mover; and the individualists, those for whom happiness is the predominant concern and a desire for freedom of action (liberty) the prime mover.
I can't tell now if it was a genuine inquiry or if my first impression was correct. Uninflected text is too impoverished to make that kind of call -- my mistake.
I've been saying for years that people prefer democracy mainly because they think it raises their social status - being ruled by a king makes you lower status relative to people who "rule themselves."
Aren't you just reciting the conventional meaning of democracy - namely, "self rule"? You're saying people prefer democracy because it raises their status from that of peasants and serfs, well, yeah... That's the whole point of it.
I think it is equally important to both, try to be what you say you want to be, but also, that whether you're successful in being what you say you want to be or not, the fact that it is perceived as a certain way in everyones mind, is just as equally important and different. I don't think you can have the latter, without continuing to work towards the first though, because then you're lazily living a lie...
Robin, do you think that much of the success of democracy is due to how much easier it is to legitimize than other forms of government? All states need to lower their cost of collecting taxes by legitimizing their actions, but it seems like thats a much easier thing to do with a democracy since people no longer buy the "divine right of kings" line. Perhaps the evolution of politics leads it to require less and less self-deception as it becomes harder and harder to keep people fooled.
I'm not sure I'd rather be ruled by a true majority instead of our current system. As Bryan Caplan has shown, that could be pretty disastrous too.
I read David Pinto's post as sarcastic, and answered with snark -- I thought he was missing the point. I have no defensible opinions about anarchism in any of its various forms.
Cyan: it's obvious from this post that Robin Hanson is an anarchist
I wouldn't say this post makes David an anarchist. Also, I wonder if you mean that in a positive or a negative way. Mind that there are several different kinds of anarchists.
I'm surprised you would link to that GNXP post. By my lights, the first two sentences are odious and not worthy of respectable company. In the interests of upholding the norms of civilization, serious and well-mannered people shouldn't engage with people who talk or think like that.
Sure, there is probably some intellectual substance to the post. But you have to draw the line somewhere.
See the added to post.
Do you really think we rule ourselves no more (or not much more) than people ruled themselves in the olden days?
Robin, haven't you also proposed that disbelief in an idea need be no barrier to vigorously (perhaps devilishly) advocating it? Hence your promotion of futarchy does not necessarily shed light on your beliefs about which government would be best.
David, start here.
My question was serious. My take from the post was that all forms of government are the same, a small group of people ruling over a large group of people with the large group of people having little say in what happens. Does he prefer no government?
I think Mr Hanson is halfway correct when he writes: "I've been saying for years that people prefer democracy mainly because they think it raises their social status". But I don't think it's the whole story.
I think democracy represents a compromise between the collectivists in society, those for whom position, or social status, within the pecking order is the predominant concern and envy (manifested as egalitarianism) the prime mover; and the individualists, those for whom happiness is the predominant concern and a desire for freedom of action (liberty) the prime mover.
Robin,
I can't tell now if it was a genuine inquiry or if my first impression was correct. Uninflected text is too impoverished to make that kind of call -- my mistake.
I've been saying for years that people prefer democracy mainly because they think it raises their social status - being ruled by a king makes you lower status relative to people who "rule themselves."
Aren't you just reciting the conventional meaning of democracy - namely, "self rule"? You're saying people prefer democracy because it raises their status from that of peasants and serfs, well, yeah... That's the whole point of it.
Cyan, what is obvious to you is not to me.
Grant, yes of course.
I think it is equally important to both, try to be what you say you want to be, but also, that whether you're successful in being what you say you want to be or not, the fact that it is perceived as a certain way in everyones mind, is just as equally important and different. I don't think you can have the latter, without continuing to work towards the first though, because then you're lazily living a lie...
Robin, do you think that much of the success of democracy is due to how much easier it is to legitimize than other forms of government? All states need to lower their cost of collecting taxes by legitimizing their actions, but it seems like thats a much easier thing to do with a democracy since people no longer buy the "divine right of kings" line. Perhaps the evolution of politics leads it to require less and less self-deception as it becomes harder and harder to keep people fooled.
I'm not sure I'd rather be ruled by a true majority instead of our current system. As Bryan Caplan has shown, that could be pretty disastrous too.
I read David Pinto's post as sarcastic, and answered with snark -- I thought he was missing the point. I have no defensible opinions about anarchism in any of its various forms.
Cyan: it's obvious from this post that Robin Hanson is an anarchist
I wouldn't say this post makes David an anarchist. Also, I wonder if you mean that in a positive or a negative way. Mind that there are several different kinds of anarchists.
Nominull: The British seem perfectly happy to be ruled by a monarch, despite the loss of status.
The British are most definitely not ruled by a monarch. All European monarchs are little more than lavishly paid figureheads, and everybody knows it.
ck,
Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.
Robin Hanson,
I'm surprised you would link to that GNXP post. By my lights, the first two sentences are odious and not worthy of respectable company. In the interests of upholding the norms of civilization, serious and well-mannered people shouldn't engage with people who talk or think like that.
Sure, there is probably some intellectual substance to the post. But you have to draw the line somewhere.
--CK